[Federal Register: June 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 111)]
[Notices]
[Page 39677-39681]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10jn02-36]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-475-822]
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Administrative Review:
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request from ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali
Terni S.p.A (``TKAST'') and ThyssenKrupp AST USA, Inc.(``TKASTUSA''),
the U.S. Department of Commerce (``Department'') is conducting an
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel
plate in coils (``SSPC'') from Italy for the period May 1, 2000,
through April 30, 2001. The Department preliminarily determines that no
dumping margin exists for TKAST's sales of SSPC in the United States.
If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this
administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service not to
assess antidumping duties on entries of TKAST's merchandise during the
period of review (``POR''). The preliminary results are listed in the
section titled ``Preliminary Results of Review,'' infra.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Bailey or Robert Bolling,
Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-1102, or 202-482-3434,
respectively.
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (``Act''), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (``URAA''). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are
to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 21, 1999, the Department published in the Federal Register
the antidumping duty order on SSPC from Italy. See Antidumping Duty
Orders; Certain Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium, Canada,
Italy, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan, 64 FR 27756
(May 21, 1999). On May 1, 2001, the Department published in the Federal
Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review''
of this antidumping duty order on SSPC from Italy for the period May 1,
2000, through April 30, 2001. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty
Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request
Administrative Review 66 FR 21740 (May 1, 2001). On May 31, 2001,
TKAST, an Italian producer and exporter of the subject merchandise, and
TKASTUSA, TKAST's affiliated United States re-seller, requested that
the Department conduct a review of its sales of the Department's
antidumping duty order on SSPC from Italy. On June 19, 2001, in
accordance with section 751(a) of the Act, the Department published in
[[Page 39678]]
the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review for the period May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2001. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 FR 32934
(June 19, 2001).
On July 11, 2001, the Department issued its antidumping duty
questionnaire to TKAST. On August 8, 2001, TKAST reported that it made
sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR in its
response to section A of the Department's questionnaire. On August 27,
2001, TKAST submitted its responses to sections B, C, and D of the
Department's questionnaire.
On September 17, 2001, petitioners requested that the Department
initiate a sale below cost of production (``COP'') investigation with
respect to home market sales of SSPC made by TKAST and its affiliates.
On October 22, 2001, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost
investigation and issued a section D questionnaire to TKAST. See letter
from the Department to TKAST, dated October 22, 2001 and Memorandum to
the File from Stephen Shin to Edward Yang: Administrative Review of
Antidumping Duty Order on Stainless Steel Plate and Coil from Italy:
Analysis of Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of
Production for Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A., dated October 22, 2001
(``Below Cost Memo'').
On October 30, 2001, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire for section A of TKAST's questionnaire response. On
November 23, 2001, TKAST submitted its response to the Department's
section D questionnaire. On November 26, 2001, the Department issued a
supplemental questionnaire for sections B & C of TKAST's questionnaire
response. On November 30 , 2001, TKAST submitted its response to the
Department's section A supplemental questionnaire. On December 3, 2001,
the Department published an extension of time limit for the preliminary
results of the antidumping duty administrative review until April 2,
2002. See Notice of Extension of the Time Limit for Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils from Italy, 66 FR 60196 (December 3, 2001). On December 21, 2001,
TKAST submitted its response to the Department's sections B & C
supplemental questionnaire. On February 15, 2002, the Department issued
a supplemental questionnaire for section D of TKAST's questionnaire
response. On March 5, 2002, the Department published an extension of
time limit for the preliminary results of the antidumping duty
administrative review until May 31, 2002. See Notice of Extension of
Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Italy, 67 FR
9960 (March 5, 2002). On March 8, 2001, TKAST submitted its response to
the Department's section D supplemental questionnaire. On March 14,
2002, the Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire for
sections A through C of TKAST's supplemental response. On March 21,
2002, the Department issued its second supplemental questionnaire for
section D of TKAST's supplemental response. On April 3, 2002, TKAST
submitted its response to the Department's second sections A-D
supplemental questionnaires.
Scope of Review
For purposes of this administrative review, the product covered is
certain stainless steel plate in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy
steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5
percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The
subject plate products are flat-rolled products, 254 mm or over in
width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, in coils, and annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject
plate may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, etc.)
provided that it maintains the specified dimensions of plate following
such processing. Excluded from the scope of this petition are the
following: (1) Plate not in coils, (2) plate that is not annealed or
otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (3) sheet and
strip, and (4) flat bars. In addition, certain cold-rolled stainless
steel plate in coils is also excluded from the scope of these orders.
The excluded cold-rolled stainless steel plate in coils is defined as
that merchandise which meets the physical characteristics described
above that has undergone a cold-reduction process that reduced the
thickness of the steel by 25 percent or more, and has been annealed and
pickled after this cold reduction process.
The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at
subheadings: 7219110030, 7219110060, 7219120005, 7219120020,
7219120025, 7219120050, 7219120055, 7219120065, 7219120070, 7219120080,
7219310010, 7219900010, 7219900020, 7219900025, 7219900060, 7219900080,
7220110000, 7220201010, 7220201015, 7220201060, 7220201080, 7220206005,
7220206010, 7220206015, 7220206060, 7220206080, 7220900010, 7220900015,
7220900060, and 7220900080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided
for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the
merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified the
information submitted by TKAST for use in our preliminary results. We
used standard verification procedures, including examination of
relevant accounting and production records and original source
documents provided by TKAST. We verified sales and cost information
provided by TKAST from April 10, 2002 to April 19, 2002. Our
verification results are outlined in the public version of the
verification report and are on file in the Central Records Unit
(``CRU'') located in room B-099 of the main Department of Commerce
Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C.
Product Comparison
In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all
SSPC products produced by TKAST, covered by the description in the
``Scope of Review'' section of this notice, supra, and sold in the home
market during the POR to be foreign like products for the purpose of
determining appropriate product comparisons to SSPC products sold in
the United States. We have relied on seven characteristics to match
U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison sales of the foreign
like product (listed in order of preference): grade, hot/cold rolled,
width, gauge, finish, edge trim, and patterns in relief. Where there
were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market to compare to
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to the next most similar foreign
like product on the basis of the characteristics listed in the July 11,
2001, antidumping duty questionnaire and instructions, or to
constructed value (``CV''), as appropriate.
Constructed Export Price
We calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act
because the first sales to an unaffiliated purchaser took place after
the subject merchandise was imported into the United States.
We based CEP on the packed ex-warehouse or delivered prices to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we
made a deduction from the starting price for credit and added an amount
for an alloy
[[Page 39679]]
surcharge. We also made deductions for the following movement expenses,
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act:
international freight (includes foreign transportation from plant to
port, foreign insurance; shipment from port to the United States, and
marine insurance); U.S. inland freight from port to the unaffiliated
customer (includes U.S. insurance); other U.S. transportation expenses
(includes brokerage, wharfage and trucking), and U.S. Customs duties.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling
expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United
States, including direct selling expenses, inventory carrying costs,
and other indirect selling expenses. We recalculated inventory carrying
costs because TKAST revised its interest rate for credit, but failed to
revise inventory carrying cost using the new interest rate. See
Memorandum from Stephen Bailey to the File: Analysis for ThyssenKrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A (``TKAST'') for the preliminary results of
the administrative review stainless steel plate in coils from Italy for
the period May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001, (``Analysis Memo'')
dated May 31, 2002 and Second Administrative Review of Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils from Italy - Sales and Cost Verification Report for
ThyssenKrupp Acciai Speciali Terni S.p.A., dated May 13, 2002
(``Verification Report'').
We deducted the profit allocated to expenses deducted under section
772(d)(1) and (d)(2) in accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f)
of the Act. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we computed
profit based on total revenues realized on sales in both the U.S. and
home markets, less all expenses associated with those sales. We then
allocated profit to expenses incurred with respect to U.S. economic
activity, based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses to total expenses
for both the U.S. and home market.
Normal Value
After testing home market viability, as discussed below, we
calculated normal value (``NV'') as noted in the ``Price-to-CV
Comparisons'' and ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' sections of this
notice.
1.Home Market Viability
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act, to determine
whether there was sufficient volume of sales in the home market to
serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume
of home market sales of the foreign like product is greater than or
equal to five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we
compared TKAST's volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Because
TKAST's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like
product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S.
sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market
was viable. We therefore based NV on home market sales in the usual
commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
Price-to-Price Comparisons
For those product comparisons for which there were sales at prices
above the cost of production (``COP''), we based NV on prices to home
market customers. We calculated NV based on prices to affiliated and
unaffiliated home market customers. Where appropriate, we deducted
rebates, credit expenses, warranty expenses, inland freight, and inland
insurance in accordance with 773(a)(6)(B). We also adjusted the
starting price for billing adjustments and an alloy surcharge. We
recalculated a payment date for a particular home market sale because
at verification we found that the actual payment date was one day later
than the payment date which was reported to the Department. See
Analysis Memo and Verification Report.
We made adjustments, where appropriate, for physical differences in
the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Additionally, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B), we
deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs. In
accordance with the Department's practice, where all contemporaneous
matches to a U.S. sale observation resulted in difference-in-
merchandise adjustments exceeding 20 percent of the cost of
manufacturing (``COM'') of the U.S. product, we based NV on CV.
Arm's-Length Sales
TKAST reported that it made sales in the home market to affiliated
and unaffiliated end users and distributors/retailers. Sales to
affiliated customers in the home market not made at arm's length were
excluded from our analysis. To test whether these sales were made at
arm's length, we compared the starting prices of sales to affiliated
and unaffiliated customers net of all billing adjustments, movement
charges, direct selling expenses, discounts and packing, but included
the alloy surcharge. Where prices to the affiliated party were on
average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unrelated party, we
determined that sales made to the related party were at arm's length.
See 19 CFR 351.403(c). Where no affiliated customer ratio could be
calculated because identical merchandise was not sold to unaffiliated
customers, we were unable to determine that these sales were made at
arm's length and, therefore, excluded them from our analysis. See,
e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Argentina, 58 FR 37062,
37077 (July 9, 1993). Where the exclusion of such sales eliminated all
sales of the most appropriate comparison product, we made comparisons
to the next most similar model. In our home market NV calculation, we
have included TKAST's sales to its affiliated resellers, because all
affiliated resellers passed the Department's arm's length test
criteria. Therefore, we have not included downstream sales from TKAST's
affiliated resellers to their customers.
Price-to-CV Comparisons
In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV
if we were unable to find a home market match of identical or similar
merchandise. We calculated CV based on the costs of materials and
fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, selling,
general and administrative expenses (``SG&A''), and profit. In
accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based SG&A expense
and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in
connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in
the ordinary course of trade for consumption in Italy. For selling
expenses, we used the weighted-average home market selling expenses.
Where appropriate, we made adjustments to CV in accordance with section
773(a)(8) of the Act. Where we compared CV to CEP, we deducted from CV
the weighted-average home market direct selling expenses.
2. Cost of Production Analysis
Based on the information contained in a timely filed cost
allegation by the petitioners on September 17, 2001, the Department
found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that TKAST made sales in
the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise
in this review, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. As a result,
the Department initiated a cost of production inquiry in this case to
determine whether TKAST made home market sales during the POR at prices
below their respective COPs within the
[[Page 39680]]
meaning of section 773(b) of the Act. See Below Cost Memo.
A. Calculation of COP
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated a
weighted-average COP based on the sum of TKAST's cost of materials and
fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and
administrative expenses (``G&A''), including interest expenses, and
packing costs. We relied on the COP data submitted by TKAST in its
original and supplemental cost questionnaire responses. For these
preliminary results, we revised the following: (1) TKAST's general and
administrative (``G&A'') rate because TKAST failed to calculate its G&A
rate as a percentage of the cost of sales as presented in its audited
financial statements; (2) TKAST's interest expense ratio because TKAST
applied its interest expense ratio to the per-unit variable cost (VCOM)
of each model, rather than the per-unit total cost of production
(TOTCOM); and (3) TKAST's cost of manufacturing to include expenses for
technical services because TKAST classified the expenses incurred at
cost centers dedicated to creating mill certificates, quality control
and mechanical laboratory testing for stainless steel as technical
services rather than as costs dedicated to producing the subject
merchandise. See Analysis Memo and Verification Report.
B. Test of Home Market Prices
On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP
for TKAST to home market sales of the foreign like product, as required
under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these
sales had been made at prices below the COP. In determining whether to
disregard home market sales made at prices below the COP, we examined
whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in
substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with
section 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. We compared the COP to home
market prices, less any applicable billing adjustments, movement
charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses.
C. Results of the COP Test
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of TKAST's sales of a given product were at prices below the
COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because
we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of TKAST's sales of a given
product during the POR were at prices below the COP, we determined that
such sales have been made in ``substantial quantities'' pursuant to
section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) within an extended period of time, in
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act. In such cases, because
we use POR average costs, we also determined that such sales were not
made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a
reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of
the Act. Therefore, we disregarded the below-cost sales. For those
sales of subject merchandise for which there were no comparable home
market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared CEP to CV in
accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
D. Calculation of Constructed Value
In accordance with section 773(e)(1) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the sum of TKAST's cost of materials, fabrication, general and
administrative (``G&A'') (including interest expenses), U.S. packing
costs, direct and indirect selling expenses, and profit. In accordance
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based selling, general and
adminstrative (``SG&A'') and profit on the amounts incurred and
realized by TKAST in connection with the production and sale of the
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade, for consumption
in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the actual
weighted-average home market direct and indirect selling expenses. For
CV, we made the same adjustments described in the COP section above.
Level of Trade
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. The NV LOT
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market, or when
NV is based on CV, that of the sales from which we derive SG&A expenses
and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is also the level of the starting-
price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is
the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or
CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions
along the chain of distribution between the producer and the
unaffiliated customer. If the comparison market sales are at a
different LOT, and the difference affects price comparability, as
manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the
sales on which NV is based and comparison market sales at the LOT of
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is
more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis
for determining whether the difference in levels between NV and CEP
affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of
the Act (the CEP offset provision). See, e.g., Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19,
1997).
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained
information from TKAST about the marketing stages involved in its
reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the
selling activities performed by TKAST for each channel of distribution.
In identifying levels of trade for CEP and home market sales, we
considered only the selling activities reflected in the price after the
deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See
Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-1315
(Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the
same in the home and U.S. markets, the functions and activities of the
seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of
trade that are different for different categories of sales, the
functions and activities may be dissimilar.
In the home market, TKAST reported one level of trade. TKAST sold
through two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) directly
from its mill to affiliated and unaffiliated distributors/retailers or
end users; and (2) from inventory to affiliated and unaffiliated
distributors/retailers or end users. For sales in home market channel
one, TKAST performed sales-related activities, including pre-sale and
continuous technical assistance; sample analysis; price negotiation and
customer communication; processing of customer order; arranging for
freight and delivery; sales calls and visits; credit and collection;
and warranty services. The same selling functions were performed in
home market channel two; however, unlike direct factory sales, these
sales carry no guarantee or warranty. Also, TKAST, rather than the
customer, typically initiates sales of products through channel two by
distributing a list of available products to potential customers.
Despite these variations, we find that the selling activities in the
two
[[Page 39681]]
channels of distribution are similar. Because these selling functions
are similar for both sales channels, except for the initiation of the
sale, we preliminarily determine that home market sales in the two
channels of distribution constitute a single level of trade.
We reviewed the selling functions and services performed by TKAST
in the U.S. market, as represented by TKAST in its section A response.
TKAST reported one LOT for sales to the U.S. TKAST sold through one
channel of distribution in the U.S. market: (1) directly from its mill
through TKASTUSA to unaffiliated distributors/service centers. TKAST
indicated that the selling functions performed by TKAST for CEP sales
for its U.S. back-to-back sales are the same functions described above
for home market channel one (i.e., pre-sale and continuous technical
assistance; sample analysis; price negotiation and customer
communication, etc). In addition, TKAST reported that TKASTUSA
performed selling functions for its back-to-back sales from TKASTUSA to
unaffiliated U.S. customers which include the following: processing
inquiries and purchase orders; price negotiation; freight and delivery
arrangements from TKAST's plant to the U.S. port (including the cost of
transporting the goods to the European port, port handling, and ocean
freight); sales calls and visits; invoicing; and extending credit. We
preliminarily find that the selling functions in the U.S. through
TKAST's single channel of distribution represent one level of trade.
In order to determine whether NV was established at a different LOT
than CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling
functions along the chains of distribution between TKAST and its home
market customers. We compared the selling functions performed for home
market sales with those performed with respect to the CEP transaction,
after deductions for economic activities occurring in the United
States, pursuant to section 772(d) of the Act, to determine if the home
market levels of trade constituted more advanced stages of distribution
than the CEP level of trade. Based on our analysis of the selling
functions performed for sales in the HM and CEP sales in the U.S.
market described above, we preliminarily determine that there is not a
significant difference in the selling functions performed in the home
market and U.S. market and that these sales are made at the same LOT.
Because we found that no difference in the level of trade exists
between the home market and U.S. market, we have not granted a CEP
offset to TKAST.
Currency Conversion
For purposes of the preliminary results, we made currency
conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on
the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank in
accordance section 773A(a) of the Act.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margin exists:
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Producer/Manufacturer/Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TKAST................................................ 0.00%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224, the Department will disclose to any
party to the proceeding, within ten days of publication of this notice,
the calculations performed. Any interested party may request a hearing
within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be held
37 days after the date of publication, or the first working day
thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written
comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication. Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 35 days after the
date of publication. The Department will publish the final results of
this administrative review, which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing,
within 120 days after the publication of this notice.
Upon issuance of the final results of review, the Department shall
determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to Customs. The final results of this review
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries
of merchandise covered by the results and for future deposits of
estimated duties. For duty assessment purposes, we calculated an
importer-specific assessment rate by dividing the total dumping margins
calculated for the U.S. sales to the importer by the total entered
value of these sales. This rate will be used for the assessment of
antidumping duties on all entries of the subject merchandise by that
importer during the POR.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for
all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final
results of this administrative review, as provided in section 751(a)(1)
of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for TKAST will be that established
in the final results of this review; 2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review, a prior review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit
rate will continue to be the ``all other'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation, which was 39.69 percent. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils from Italy, 64 FR 15458 (March 31, 1999).
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under regulation 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice is published in accordance
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 31, 2002
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 02-14515 Filed 6-7-02; 8:45 am]